The truth is that I very nearly missed out on becoming a mother – thanks to being brought up by a rabid feminist who thought motherhood was about the worst thing that could happen to a woman.

You see, my mum taught me that children enslave women. I grew up believing that children are millstones around your neck, and the idea that motherhood can make you blissfully happy is a complete fairytale.

In fact, having a child has been the most rewarding experience of my life. Far from ‘enslaving’ me, three-and-a-half-year-old Tenzin has opened my world. My only regret is that I discovered the joys of motherhood so late – I have been trying for a second child for two years, but so far with no luck.

I was raised to believe that women need men like a fish needs a bicycle. But I strongly feel children need two parents and the thought of raising Tenzin without my partner, Glen, 52, would be terrifying.

As the child of divorced parents, I know only too well the painful consequences of being brought up in those circumstances. Feminism has much to answer for denigrating men and encouraging women to seek independence whatever the cost to their families.

First, since 1972, women’s overall level of happiness has dropped, both relative to where they were forty years ago, and relative to men. You find this drop in happiness in women regardless of whether they have kids, how many kids they have, how much money they make, how healthy they are, what job they hold, whether they are married, single or divorced, how old they are, or what race they are.

A fascinating post about the relative happiness of men and women can be read here.

It’s about a woman who chose to date a delinquent and, unsurprisingly, was murdered by him. Also discussed is the feminists who defended Roman Polanski, though I have to say that I was relieved to see that the majority of vocal feminists want his head on a platter. (For those who haven’t yet found out, it wasn’t just statutory rape; the creep drugged a 13-year-old girl and raped her orally, vaginally and anally while she kept telling him no and asking him to stop. In other words, it was “rape-rape”.)

The mom was a professorette of criminal justice “who specialized in violence against women but has taught classes in homicide”. She co-wrote a book on sexual violence. This woman was paid to spend all of her time studying this stuff and she couldn’t tell her daughter, “Don’t date a horrorcore rapper”?

Life in the prehistoric era, as Marilyn French tells it, was apparently much like that in a modern Scout camp. Early humans fished and frolicked, lived off the land and sat around communal fires at night talking, singing and indulging in sexual banter. Life was generally not hard, she says, and peace reigned between the sexes and between humans and nature. This idyllic era, a source of some nostalgia for the author, fell victim to the most decisive and perfidious event in history: the rise of patriarchy….

Along the way, French dispenses reams of disinformation. Middle-class women of the 18th century, she writes, got pregnant easily because they were inactive. Regarbling an already muddled item from Ms. magazine, she says that President Carter wanted to send female soldiers into Afghanistan, and that the Afghan rebellion occurred partly because of the Soviet demand that women be allowed to read, write and attend village meetings. China and the Soviet Union are listed as the world leaders in allowing women to fulfill themselves.

I’m pleasantly surprised to see feminist yapping ridiculed in a PC publication like Time.

As soon as I heard about the gym shooting, I braced myself for a media frenzy. They love it when someone who isn’t a Muslim commits mass murder. Better yet, he’s white! Hooray! Break out the confetti, white people can be evil too! Also, this means we need gun control! We promise that we won’t send the secret police for people who disagree with our religious and political beliefs once you’re all disarmed, really, we won’t! Sure, banning guns was one of the first things the Nazis did, but we won’t do what they did with a disarmed populace, heh heh heh heh heh.

I’m having a busy week – had to take a relative to the ER (the relative is going to be fine) and some other stuff – so I wasn’t going to post about this. It isn’t really relevant to this blog, IMO. This blog is focused on theory about why feminism has such consistently bad results, and specific incidents that illustrate the theories, such as single mothers murdering their children. (Fathers almost never murder their own children. Stepfathers and “mommy’s boyfriend” do it routinely. Mothers do it less routinely, but way way more often than fathers. This is why children belong with their fathers, the one adult on earth who doesn’t want them dead.)

But Roissy got me a bit interested in the gym shooter. He immediately pounced on the fact that the murderer hadn’t been laid in 20 years, and said that if he had learned game and gotten laid, he probably wouldn’t have felt the need to commit murder. I’m not so sure – Charles Manson didn’t lack for female companionship, and Ted Bundy always had a steady girlfriend – but certainly that kind of loneliness can have a warping effect on the soul. And I would rather people not get their souls warped so that I can take exercise classes without worrying about getting shot.

Then it turned out that the poor sap had actually taken a pick-up seminar. A lame one, by a pick-up guru held in low esteem by serious PUAs, but will that make any difference to the media and the feminists?

This is just the groundswell, I expect next week’s View, Oprah and Dr. Phil show’s rosters is already filled with ‘experts’ ready to vilify and ridicule ‘evil’ men.”

I read these, pure gold. I could not stop laughing. They’ll go to any extent to avoid blame. Somehow, this shooting and George’s problems with women are a result of cultural misogyny and patriarchy, not a 20 year celibacy. I wish that F. Roger Devlin was mandatory reading for anyone who wants to post on the internet about men and women.

Misogyny is an emotion. Anyone who doesn’t hate women in today’s world has to be comatose, because most women today behave in a thoroughly hateful fashion. Yet most of us will never commit any acts of violence. Heck, I’m constantly denouncing the many ways in which feminists put other women in harm’s way, such as encouraging them to go to places where there is a high probability of their being raped, or putting themselves in situations where a rape could easily happen, or voting for aspiring dictators who want to take our guns, or encouraging the fatherless homes which produce 75% of violent criminals, or permitting co-ed schools, in which girls are guaranteed to be assaulted sexually and physically by boys. Feminists do everything they can to support these sources of violence against women, and react with fury when someone like me mentions how women can minimize their chances of being raped or murdered. (Own a gun, don’t go to bad neighborhoods late at night wearing a miniskirt and get drunk, don’t take off your clothes and get into bed with a man you don’t want to fuck, and don’t set foot on a co-ed elementary school campus unless you’re an adult who is larger than all the males on campus. If that is the case, they’re the ones who should be afraid of you.) I, the misogynist, am the one who’s denouncing things that facilitate or lead to violence against women. Meanwhile, feminists are actively promoting these things. What does this tell you?

So, to the feminist bloggers who think they’ve explained something by invoking the honorable and proud title “misogynist” and applying it to this pathetic loser, think again. Isis the “Scientist” photoshopped a male blogger’s name onto a picture of a coffin, so she’s obviously pretty full of hate herself, but I doubt she’s ever killed any of the literal billions of people who have failed to correctly anticipate what random statement she will decide to interpret as “sexist”. A few days ago I came across another feminist blog which is so icky I’m not even going to link it, but it consisted pretty much entirely of her spewing obscene epithets at Christians, capitalists, and any male commenter who politely disagreed with her. She openly fantasized about all the Christians in the world being put to death, which I would say indicates a bit of hatred, but I don’t believe she’ll ever actually kill anyone.

On the off chance that you feminists want to impress the world with your genuine concern over acts of violence, I suggest that the next time a toddler is murdered by whatever scumbag their mother left their father for, which will probably be by noon tomorrow, you all denounce her roundly. “That whore should never have deprived that poor child of his father!” etc. Feminists won’t do this, of course, because they make no bones about their belief that their orgasms are more important than the lives of their children.

But back to Roissy, I have to say that I’m amused. He routinely gets hundreds of comments on his posts, many of them, naturally, from women who are outraged that he doesn’t see them as the super-deep Special Snowflakes they like to imagine they are. But this time, he’s apparently gotten so many hysterical comments from idiot feminists that he felt the need to tell them off:

To all the femdopes suffering from post traumatic reading incomprehension currently linking to my last few series of posts about George Sodini and menstruating indignantly all over the internet, you should get your logic straight before flapping your gums.

I just got back from the gym. In the locker room, I overheard a conversation that amused me. It was a few older women who were married to Korean War veterans. Their husbands, they related, say that despite getting shot at and having just enough money to live on, the years in the Army were the best time of their lives. Why? One of them summed it up: “No problems with women.” I was snickering into my locker.

Tough Love by Theodore Dalrymple (Everything this man has written is worth reading. Also seek out his essays under his real name, Anthony Daniels.)

Last week, a 17-year-old girl was admitted to my ward with such acute alcohol poisoning that she could scarcely breathe by her own unaided efforts, alcohol being a respiratory depressant. When finally she woke, 12 hours later, she told me that she had been a heavy drinker since the age of 12….

I asked her whether she thought a young and violent burglar would have proved much of a companion. She admitted that he wouldn’t, but said that he was the type she liked; besides which—in slight contradiction—all boys were the same.

I warned her as graphically as I could that she was already well down the slippery slope leading to poverty and misery—that, as I knew from the experience of untold patients, she would soon have a succession of possessive, exploitative, and violent boyfriends, unless she changed her life. I told her that in the past few days, I had seen two women patients who had had their heads rammed down the lavatory, one who had had her head smashed through a window and her throat cut on the shards of glass, one who had had her arm, jaw, and skull broken, and one who had been suspended by her ankles from a tenth-floor window to the tune of, “Die, you bitch!”

“I can look after myself,” said my 17-year-old.

“But men are stronger than women,” I said. “When it comes to violence, they are at an advantage.”

“That’s a sexist thing to say,” she replied.

A girl who had absorbed nothing at school had nevertheless absorbed the shibboleths of political correctness in general and of feminism in particular.

“But it’s a plain, straightforward, and inescapable fact,” I said.

“It’s sexist,” she reiterated firmly.

A stubborn refusal to face inconvenient facts, no matter how obvious, now pervades our attitude toward relations between the sexes. An ideological filter of wishful thinking strains out anything we’d prefer not to acknowledge about these eternally difficult and contested relations, with predictably disastrous results.

Traditional views hold that women are more socially co-operative than men, but researchers from the Université du Québec à Montréal, Harvard University and Emmanuel College in Boston found female same-sex friendships are significantly less tolerant, more volatile, and likelier to degrade based on a single negative incident than male same-sex friendships.

Regular readers will know that I disagree with a lot of this blogger’s beliefs, but this post is nonetheless valuable.

Some of my acquaintances seem to regard my concern as being alarmist, but look at this story about the fate of a young women with the typical high ideals.

The remarks of the young woman’s parents are also a textbook example of politically correct denial. Far better, apparently, to sacrifice your children than to think ill of anyone, at least, anyone from the world’s protected groups.

Another way in which many people deal with this kind of news story is to proclaim that it’s an anomaly; that most such young women don’t come to a violent end, or that in any case, it might just as easily have happened right here at home. The latter is the rationalization of the bereaved parents in the above story.

But her fate was not exactly a freakish, one-in-a-million occurrence, as similar stories show.And if the comments following the above-linked article are still there (they may not necessarily be), you will see that a few other young women state that they were assaulted during their volunteer stints in such countries.

I have a lot more links that I’ve accumulated, but I don’t want to overwhelm you guys, so I’ll keep posting a few a day until they’re all posted.

He’s got two recent posts that are made of win. Well, most of his posts are made of win, but these especially.

There’s today’s: Great Scenes Of Game In The Movies, where he posts a clip of Cary Grant putting his palm into Katharine Hepburn’s face and shoving her onto the floor. In the end, they get together.

Roissy rants a bit about how most men these days don’t have the balls to confront women, especially not physically, even in the harmless way it’s done in the movie clip, where she’s not at all hurt, only embarrassed. And outside of elementary school classrooms, he’s right. But this made me think of a couple of things.

If you go to the post and watch the clip, you’ll see that first Cary Grant pulls back his fist as if he’s going to punch her, but immediately stops himself and instead puts his hand on her face and gives her a shove. I think the dramatic purpose here was to remind Hepburn’s character as well as the audience of who is the truly powerful one here, and then to show us that the hero is in control of himself, but it is only because of his self-control that she is spared a punch in the jaw after having provoked him so much.

If movies of the time are any indication, it used to be fairly routine for men to give the women in their lives little reminders of the male capacity for violence. Nowadays, a man who shoved a woman to the floor or pushed a grapefruit into her face would be labelled as an “abuser”, which is pretty silly considering the kind of pain men routinely inflict on each other, or that allegedly loving parents inflict on their children. So most men who have the capacity to plan ahead – that is, who can restrain themselves on the spot in order to stay out of jail – are never going to give a woman any such painless indignity.

This is, in fact, a problem. Because feminists, which is most women these days, have no clue what men are like. They either believe that men are monstrous Neanderthals ready to rape and pillage like Genghis Khan at any moment, or that they’re just like women, only hairier. The fact is, women aren’t nearly as violent as men, both because we’re too small and because our hormones don’t motivate us to it. Most female violence that does occur is aimed at helpless targets, such as children or civilized men who won’t fight back (see the “Battered Men” links in my sidebar), and we all know that women are capable of a lot of nonphysical sadism.

So by sheltering women from the usual social customs that used to restrain women from provoking violent retaliation that they couldn’t handle, and the unpleasant but harmless reminders like in that movie clip that men are capable of violence, we’re basically telling women a lie, that they can provoke men all they want and not expect a physical assault when eventually some man’s had enough.

Camille Paglia is often crazy, but she understands this. Some years ago, she told an interviewer about a woman who led her on to believe she was going to sleep with Paglia (who’s bisexual), then changed her mind when it came to the crunch. Paglia said, “I wanted to hit her. If I had been a man, I would have hit her.” The interviewer, no doubt shocked, said, “Would you have been right to hit her?” Paglia replied, “That’s not the point. The point is that I would have.”

Remember when I posted about the Errant Wife a while back? She quoted someone as pointing out that her kind of behavior is likely to provoke some men to kill their unfaithful wives, and she commented, “Seriously?” Is she not aware that infidelity has been one of the leading motives for murder from time immemorial? Does she not understand that a proper marriage is one of the rewards society offers men for restraining their antisocial impulses? No, silly me, of course she doesn’t. Probably she, like most feminists, believes that men commit violent acts because society has brainwashed them into believing that this is how they prove their manhood. Has nothing at all to do with their inherent testosterone or neural structure, no sir. Force all boys to spend their childhoods locked up with silly women who tell them about warm fuzzies and cold pricklies and they’ll grow up to be as pacifist and nurturing as women!

(Exercise: look at the crime rate since boys were subjected to that kind of training.)

I’m not saying that men don’t have any responsibility to control their violent impulses. Of course they do. But actions have consequences. Friends should be loyal to you through thick and thin, but if you keep saying nasty things to your friends and telling their secrets to others, eventually they’ll kick you out of their lives. Children should obey their parents, but if their parents regularly abuse them, it’s more than likely that once they’re big enough, they’ll one day get fed up and brain Mom and Dad with the toaster. If you keep on violating hardwired principles, there will be consequences, later if not sooner. Sure, in a civilized society the man you’ve treated so shabbily will be put in prison for beating or killing you, but how much good will that do you? You’re already dead. Or in traction.

The women I’ve posted about recently, who thought they could go to Taliban-controlled countries unmolested, would probably not have gone through what they did if a couple of their boyfriends had applied a grapefruit to their faces or put their fist through the drywall, as one of Roissy’s commenters suggested.

Roissy’s post has, at this moment, 117 comments. I’ve only read about the first ten, but two of those defend Roissy’s charge that most “beta males” today are too afraid of women to shove her onto the floor as Cary Grant did. One called Z says:

I also honestly believe if it weren’t for what modern prison is (gang beatings and gang-rapes of non-underclass non-gang member men by connected lifetime-underlcass thugs) thatt you’d be very suprised at how assertive beta males would be. They dont fear women at all. They fear prison and the wrecking of their lives professionally and financailly that would be imposed upon them by the state upon their release (try to get a decent job if you have been in the joint and have to state that on an application) . They also fear the incident’s record abetting the taking of their children at any divorce proceedings. If knocking out a few of your girlfriend’s/wife’s teeth were only punished by having to work on road-work crews during weekends for 12 hour shifts for one year, or some other non-penal penalty that didn’t affect a man’s employment ($5,000 fine perhaps?), but simply made him work it off for 4-500 hours, dentists would be quite busy (and plastic surgeons) fixing knocked out teeth and broken jaws. Women have -no idea- how violent merely ordinary men can be when not restrained by the state’s *truly* cruel and unusual (HIV from prison rape) countermeasures actually are.

Completely true. Draconian laws that allow men to be jailed for obviously trivial or imaginary “abuse” is a big part of what allows women to get away with the outrageous behavior this blog is devoted to venting about.

The other Roissy post I want to share is The Self-Made Beta. He relates having spotted a beta male talking to a sexily clad young woman, not flirting or in any way acknowledging that she was obviously out to attract men, because he knew she wasn’t the kind of man she was hoping to ensnare.

Here is my call to arms. I believe it is every man’s duty to impolitely flirt and pass sexual judgement on each attractive woman who crosses his path. I believe it is every man’s right, no matter what his age, to refuse to apologize for his natural desires, to make no excuses for his deviant wants, and to grab any opportunity to hit on women in his field of view. I believe it is every man’s mission statement at birth to disturb a woman’s banal self-satisfied sanctuary — her cultivated immunity from unsettling intrusions of the psychologically erectile form – whenever she cavalierly insults his primal urges with naive overtures toward tepid, desexualized friendliness. I believe in all this because a man is happiest when he is demonstrating by his actions a proper respect for his masculine prerogative. I want there to be no mental safe haven for sexually enticing women in public places where men are present. I want them forced to confront what men are truly feeling and visualizing underneath their threadbare civility, and to understand there is no walling off the ever-encroaching predatory chaos of the jungle. I want them to be psychologically groped, everywhere there are men like me at ease with our voracious sexuality.

Lately it seems that I have been seeing a lot of feminists protesting the idea that wearing sexy clothes makes men think about sex. I grant you this is counterintuitive. (Note: irony.) There’s Isis the Scientist, insisting that women who wear brightly colored spike heels shouldn’t have to endure the horror of men lusting after them, for example.

Then there’s a female friend of mine, a mostly intelligent and sane person, but her head has been filled with the usual feminist claptrap. Naturally, she knows nothing of my own convictions. She keeps quoting very reasonable articles by men saying, “I wish women would stop wearing miniskirts and plunging necklines to the office and then claim I’m sexually harassing them when I can’t help looking,” and then denouncing these demonic men for not controlling themselves more.

Maybe I shouldn’t be quite so hard on her. Like I was saying above, feminists have no clue what men are really like. As a lesbian, I have more insight; I have some male qualities, so I understand the other sex better. I know what it’s like to see sexily dressed women in public places and have to restrain my ogling. I used to be very annoyed because a moderately attractive woman I worked with often wore tight, short skirts to the office, which was very distracting in an environment where I was supposed to be thinking about business stuff, not about sex. She was only somewhat attractive, and had she dressed properly I never would have had any such thoughts about her, but her inappropriate attire made her sexy.

Now, if I see a pretty girl in a skirt that covers her knees and isn’t too tight and a shirt that isn’t clinging and doesn’t show much cleavage, I’ll enjoy the sight. But put that same girl in tight clothing that shows more skin, and I’ll be fantasizing about going Conan on her before I’ve had time to blink. There is a definite difference. And if the effects are that different for a dyke, what must it be like for someone with six or seven times as much testosterone as I have?

And by the way, lesbians who wear makeup or feminine clothing take a lot of flak for it from other dykes. Never mind if it’s just their personal inclination; they get accused of “wanting to be attractive to men”. In the gay community, a man who wears makeup and dresses will get much more acceptance than a woman who does. My point here is, since lesbians don’t want to attract men, most of them very sensibly dress in such a way as to discourage it. Who knows what they would say if I quoted some of the articles my straight friend has been denouncing, but in their hearts, they know the truth about how men work. Go to any lesbian bar or other gathering and most of the women will be wearing jeans or even overalls, baggy shirts, no makeup, short hair, construction boots or Birkenstocks, etc. There are exceptions, but that’s how most dykes dress. Some of us will even allow ourselves to become obese to make ourselves unattractive to men – this is unconscious, but I do think it’s a big part of the reason. We know perfectly well that if we put on the spike heels and the tight clothes, men will lust after us.

I call myself a misogynist, but it’s feminists who keep putting women in harm’s way by lying to them about what men are like. I’m offering women a chance at a decent life by remembering a few simple facts:

1. Men are capable of violence. Push them too far and you will experience this.2. Wearing sexy clothes will make men lust after you. Honest. This is not an old wives’ tale.3. Your behavior has consequences. You cannot count on 100% of men to have infinite self-restraint.

A feminist professor has once again passed up an opportunity to stand up for the human rights of Muslims women. Recently Dr. Laura Briggs, Associate Professor of Women’s Studies and Head of the Department of Women’s Studies at the University of Arizona, welcomed new Ph.D. students to the department.

In the course of her address, Briggs, author of Reproducing Empire: Race, Sex, Science, and U.S. Imperialism in Puerto Rico, praised the work of other professors, including that of Saba Mahmood, Associate Professor of Social Cultural Anthropology at the University of California at Berkeley. Mahmood, said Briggs, “confronted one of the legacies of a long history of orientalism and the recent wars in the Middle East: the way we are invited to see Muslim women as hopelessly, painfully oppressed, without their own autonomy, will, or individual rights.” So apparently the oppression of Muslim women has nothing to do with Islamic law or culture; it is merely a byproduct of “orientalism and the recent wars in the Middle East” – in other words, it is the West’s fault. “If we sometimes notice other Middle Eastern women—women’s rights activists, for example,” Briggs continued, “it is only to reinforce the notion that the great mass of Muslim women are terribly oppressed by the rise of conservative religiosity, by their husbands, by the ways they are compelled to dress.”

Briggs has good news: Mahmood spent two years – two years! – in Egypt and discovered that that oppression is just a mirage: “But after two years of fieldwork in the women’s mosque movement in Egypt, Mahmood asks us to consider a new question: what if community, as much as or more than the notions of individual rights, is a route to living meaningfully? Perhaps we ought to rethink the idea that women’s agency and personhood spring from resistance to subjection, and attend to the ways that in conservative religious communities, the cultivation of virtue and of closeness to God, of certain emotions and of forms of embodiment, are challenging but hardly one-dimensional ways of producing the self.”

Clearing away the pseudo-intellectual gobbledygook, Briggs is apparently saying that if women feel fulfilled in being subjugated as inferiors under Sharia law, then their good feelings outweigh their oppression and subjection. One wonders what Betty Friedan or Gloria Steinem might have said in the 1960s if this same argument-from-fulfillment had been posed to them regarding American women. But aside from being inconsistent with what has been the feminist view of women’s oppression for decades, Briggs’s words also represent a betrayal of the Muslim women whose suffering is objective, ongoing, and largely unnoticed.

Well, yeah. For one thing, feminists are uncivilized females, and those are always enamoured of violent criminals. They’re the kind of women who send love letters to serial killers in prison, and who date vicious cheating bullies. Feminists are creaming their panties waiting for the day that Mohammedans storm in, kill all the men and children, and gang-rape them. Why do you think they keep trying to shame Western men into not fighting those barbarians? Even “fight” in the sense of “don’t let them move en masse into our countries and rape our teenage daughters”?

More civilized women would rather have Western men with spines. That is, they would like a man who will stand up to them, but not beat or rape them. A man who will defend them and their children from animals like that. A man who will sometimes indulge them, with little gifts and kindnesses, without being a doormat, ever.

Uncivilized women, whether the poor feral teenage girls on welfare in the projects or the overeducated feminist, are too primitive to see any kind of kindness, decency, or self-restraint as anything other than weakness. The only kind of man they can recognize as a man is one who’s apt to kill someone.

You probably all remember the case of Brian Nichols, the 6’1 rapist who was put in the charge of a 5’1 middle-aged woman. Shockingly, he overpowered her, punched her in the face so hard that she sustained brain damage and the ER medics thought that she had been shot, took her gun, killed three people and made his escape. It was terribly sexist of him not to remain in the guard’s custody the way he would have if she had been a man. He should have been indoctrinated in school to respect women as equals.

Police say the guard went into the vestibule of the bank and noticed a man in a gray hooded sweat shirt near an automated teller machine. As she went to the bank entrance he pounced from behind, put his arm around her chest and grabbed her handgun.

The guard dropped a nylon bag with the cash inside.

But it would be sexist not to endanger women by putting them in dangerous jobs where large men will assault them.

The Devil here rips apart a whining article by some stupid cow about how hard it is for women getting out of prison. This bimbo saw a play about women getting out of prison, then read a factual article about a man who was acquitted of a crime because he was innocent, compared the fictional criminals with the genuine falsely accused, and made a feminist issue out of it.

She: “… and in many cases have lost their children, housing, and friendship network during their time inside.”

He: “Furthermore, men always get to keep their housing and their friends are always happy to see them. If, of course, men have lost their friend network, the state support are more than happy to whistle up a new one for them.”

Reminds me of a TV movie I watched back in the 80’s about women in prison. The whole tone of the story was, “Boo hoo, life is so HARD for these poor women!” Nowhere was there any acknowledgement that they had, you know, committed crimes.

Such inane acts of violence are predicted by the book “Sex In History”, as an inevitable part of a Matrist community. The author’s 1950s prophecy has come true, however Taylor’s explanation that the killer behaved in this fashion because— “he identified with his mother sexually, and failed to develop a super-ego” —raises more questions than it answers. A more lucid explanation is that the murderer was just indulging his whims, which were totally unfettered by any sense of moral restraint. Indeed he was doing no more than most of his fellow citizens already do—give free reign to their immediate desires regardless of the results. The fact that wanton behaviour does not generally result in the violent deaths of 35 people is incidental; the motives and considerations employed by Bryant were no different in principle from those of the over-whelming majority of our 1996 community.